Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	body_n	bread_n	wine_n	2,739	5	7.9963	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A17146	A sermon preached the 30. of Ianuary last at Bletsoe, before the Lord Saint-Iohn and others concerning the doctrine of the sacrament of Christes body and blood, vvherein the truth is confirmed and the errors thereof confuted, by Edward Bulkley doctor of diuinitie.	Bulkley, Edward, d. 1621?	1586 (1586)	STC 4027; ESTC S109470	40,435	102

Fathers did teach touching the two natures of the deitie and humanity in our Sauiour Christ that they are neither to be distracted a sunder and seperated as did Nestorius nor the properties of them to be confounded as did Eutiches but the said properties are to be distinguished Euen so are we to deale in this matter of the sacrament concerning the signe and thing signified that neither they are to be distracted a sunder deuided nor to be confounded ●ogether but to be distinguished The sign which is the bread and wine are things visible and corruptible which wil in short time putrifie Iesus Christ the thing signified is to our outward eyes inuisible and is incorruptible The bread and wine are vpon earth Iesus Christ is in heauen at the right hand of God The bread wine are receiued with our mouthes broken with our téeth and féede our bodies Iesus Christ is fide digerendus saith Tertullian Tertull. de resurrect carnis receiued and eaten by faith féedeth our soules to liue to God eternally The bread and wine are receiued of all both faithfull and vnfaithfull godly and wicked Iesus Christ is onely receiued of them who be faithful Ephes 3. in whose hearts he dwelleth by faith They that do eate the bread and wine do die not onely this outward death but also many die eternally Iohn 9.51 but he that eateth this bread that came downe from heauen which is Iesus Christ himselfe shal liue for euer Thus a difference is to be put betwéene the externall sacrament and Iesus Christ of whom it is a Sacramēt And yet we must not distract seperate altogether Iesus Christ from the sacrament but beléeue that he is truely offered to all and effectually receiued of those that be gods children and haue a true faith which is the very mouth of the soule whereby they eate his flesh drinke his blood as Christ saith Iohn ● 35 I am the bread of life he that commeth to me shall neuer hunger and he that beléeueth in me shall neuer thirst Now I will onely shew briefly the vncertainty of this doctrin of Transubstantiation Lib. 4. dist 11. cap. Si autem and so I will end this discourse Peter Lombard the master of the sentences writeth thus Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa conuersio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire nō sufficio formalem tamen non esse cognosco quia species quae ante fuerant remanent i. If it be asked what kinde of conuersion that is whether formal or substantiall or of any other kind I am not able to define But yet I know that it is not a formal conuersion because that the formes and shewes which were before do still remaine Afterward he addeth some think that it is a substantiall conuersion saying that one substance is so cōuerted into an other substance that the one is essentially made the other to the which sense the fore alledged authorities do séeme to consent But some do not graunt that the substance of bread is at any time made the flesh of Christ Others be graunt that that which was bread or wine after consecration is the body and blood of Christ Some doe say thus that that conuersion is so to be vnderstoode that vnder those accidences vnder which before was the substance of bread and wine after consecration is the substance of the body blood but others haue thought that the substance of bread and wine doe there remaine and that there also is the body and blood of Christ Hitherto the master of all the Popish schoolemen whose booke of Sentences was of such credite and autority with them that it was more read expounded then the holy bible Whereby wée may plainely sée how vncertaine this their doctrine is and what diuers opinions haue bene of it So Gabriel Byell Gab. Biell in exposit Canonis Missae lect 40. an other great scholeman writeth thus Quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conuersionem alicuius in ipsum an sine conuersione incipiat enim corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non inuenitur expressum in canone Bibliae Vnde de hoc antiquitus fuerunt diuersae opiniones .i. How the body of Christ is there whether by conuersion of some thing into it or without conuersion there beginne to the body of Christ with the bread the substance and accidences of the breade remaining still it is not found expressed in the canon of the bible Whereupon in old time there were diuers opinions hereof And afterward he rehearseth foure Besides this what if Iohn Fisher bishop of Rochester a great patrone of the Pope and his doctrine doe flatly confesse that this presence of Christs body and blood in the sacrament cannot be proued by the scriptures Ioh. Roffens Episc in defentio Regiae assertionis cont captiuit Babilonicam M. Lutheri N. 8. O. Whose words be these Hactenus Mattheus c. Hitherto Matthew who onely maketh mention of the new Testament neither is there any word here set downe whereby it may be prooued that in our masse there is made a true presence of Christs bodie and blood for although Christ made of the breade his flesh and of the wine his blood it doth not therefore follow that we by vertue of any word here set downe can doe the like when we attempt the same Again he saith Non potest per vllam scripturam probari c. It cannot be proued by any scripture that either a layman or priest as often as he attempteth the same can in like manner make of bread and wine the bodie and blood of Christ as Christ himselfe made séeing this is not conteined in the scriptures And again he concludeth this matter thus Ibid. Ex iis opinor c. By these things I suppose euery man perceiueth that the certenty of this matter depēdeth not so much of the gospel as of the vse and custome which so many ages hath bene commended vnto vs from the verie first fathers Héere by the iudgement of Bishop Fisher this doctrine of Transubstantiation and reall presence dependeth not so much vpon the Gospel as vpon custome that it cannot be proued by the Scriptures whereby we may sée how vncertaine it is So that we may say with Tertullian Nihil de eo constat Lib. de carne Christi quia Scriptura non exhibet .i. We know nothing thereof because the Scripture doth not shew it And againe Lib. de monogamia Negat scriptura quod non notat .i. The scripture doth deny that which it doth not expresse wherefore let vs forsake this doubtful doctrine yea this erronious absurd and false doctrin and let vs imbrace the truth before declared let vs not séeke Christ here vpon earth but let vs lift vp our hearts into heauen there by faith eate Christs blessed body that was offred and drinke his

vnderstand that which I haue spoken You shall not eate this bodie which you sée nor drinke that blood which they shall shead that crucifie mée I commend vnto you a certaine sacrament which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you For although it must of necessity be visiblie celebrated yet it must inuisibly be vnderstood Iustinus Martyr saith Iustinus Apol. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 162. that the substance of the sacrament is turned into vs and that thereby our flesh and blood is nourished But it were a great absurdity to say that our flesh and blood is nourished of Christs bodie and blood conuerted into them Therefore it is bread wine which be turned into vs and whereby we are nourished By these places that I alledge no more it is as cleare as the sunne that the godly fathers did nothing at all doubt of this our doctrin but were of this iudgement that the substance of bread and wine remaine still in the sacrament Now it followeth that I shew that this doctrine of the Papists is contrary to the nature of a sacrament the which sufficiently appeareth by that which is before declared for I shewed that a sacramēt consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly the signe the thing signified and that there must be a similitude and agréement betwéene these two or else as I alledged out of Augustine it can be no sacrament Epis 13. for as bread and wine féede strengthen and comfort mans heart and bodie so Christs bodie and blood féed strengthen and comfort our soules Now if there be no bread nor wine then it cannot féede strengthen and comfort vs and then it hath no similitude and agréement with Christs bodie and blood and so by consequent according to Augustines iudgement it is no sacrament And thus the Papists striuing through blinde ignorance to take bread and wine from the sacrament do indéede take away the sacrament it self and so haue nothing but an Idole of their owne Now it remaineth that I proue it to be contrarie to the iudgement of our senses the which néedeth no proofe for who knoweth not that to the eie it is bread and wine to the taste it is breade and wine to the féeling and smelling it is breade and wine and not the body blood of Christ Therefore I conclude that it is bread wine But here me thinke I heare some Papists exclaiming and saying phy for shame that you should vse such Arguments to measure these mysteries by the externall iudgement of our senses I answere that I am nothing at al ashamed of this argument séeing that the best disputer that euer was in the world and that most mightily maintained the truth and confounded his aduersaries vsed the same which was neither Chrisippus nor Aristotle but Iesus Christ the son of God for when he appeared after his resurrection to his disciples and they were abashed affraid Luke 24 37. Ioh. 20 2● supposing they had séene a spirit he said vnto them why are ye troubled wherefore do doubts arise in your hearts 17. behold my hands my féete for it is I my self Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as yee sée me haue Here we sée that our sauiour proueth by séeing and handling his bodie to be no spirit but a true bodie The same reason doth Tertullian vse against that monster Martion of whom I before spake his words be these Hic primum manus ei iniectas animaduertens Lib. 4. adue●● Martionem necesse habeo iam de substantia eius corporali prefinire quòd non possit phantasma credi qui contactum quidem violentia plenum detentus captus ad precipitium vsque protractus admisserit i. I considering that heere first hands were laid vpon him Christ I must of necessitie determine of his Corporall substance Luk. 4. that he cannot bée thought to be a spirit or ghost who being detained and kept and brought euen vnto the steypie place suffered himselfe so violently to be handled and to that purpose immediatly after alledgeth a verse of Lucretius Tangere enim tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res i. Nothing can touch and be touched but a bodie Therfore either our sauiour Christ and Tertullian vsed a reason that hath no reason which I trust our aduersaries will not say or else our reason is verie strong that trie it by touching séeing tasting and it will appeare to be bread And so much the stronger is this reasō for that our said aduersaries cānot shew one example in all the scriptures where one substance by Gods mighty power being changed into an other there was not also an outward change of the qualities and properties thereof to be deserued by the outward senses As when Moses rodde was chaunged into a serpent Exod. 4.3 it was not onely in substance but also in externall shew a serpent so that Moses for feare fled from it Exod. 7.21 When the water in Egypt was turned into blood it was blood not onely in substance but also in external appearance to the eye tast so that the Egyptians could not drinke of it Iohn 2.9 When our sauiour Christ had in Cana of Galile turned the water into wine the gouernour of the feast as soone as he tasted it perceiued it to be verie good wine And therefore this should séeme to be very straunge that here should be such a chaunge or transubstantiation as they terme it of one thing into another and no alteration of any outward qualities to be discerned by the iudgement of the senses This were contrarie to Gods working in all other myracles So that it is hereby euident that this is no such myracle as they imagine as also Augustine flatly affirmeth in his third Booke and 10. Chapt. of the Trinitie Aug. de mirab●● libus Script And the same Augustine writing a particuler booke of all the myracles in the scriptures maketh no mention at all hereof by these reasons before alledged it doth I trust plainely appeare that the substance of bread wine in the sacrament do remaine and continue well then say the Papists it is but bread and we may receiue it as onely a péece of bread Nay not so we teach and beléeue Iustinus Apog 2 Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 34. that it is not to compted nor receiued as common bread and wine but a sacrament of Iesus Christ a seale of Gods promises yea and an effectual instrument of Gods grace whereby Iesus Christ with his righteousnes and al other benefits of his passion is offred vnto vs. And to make this matter more plaine by an example euen as the Queenes maiesties seale ioyned to her Letters pattents is in substance waxe stil but yet not to be reputed as commō waxe but to be reuerenced as her maiesties seale and it and the said Letters pattents to the which it is ioyned carry a power